Both big-ticket news items out of the Trump administration today remain largely speculative in many ways, so it's too early to draw firm conclusions about them. That said, based on what I heard today, I want to offer a few points for consideration.

TAX CUTS:

It is no secret that our corporate tax code is grossly uncompetitive. It is among the most expensive on the entire planet and is structured such that it discourages investing, hiring, and other key facets of a healthy economy. It discourages entrepreneurialism, encourages companies to move their headquarters to other countries, and creates an incentive for American corporations to leave large amounts of their cash overseas--cash that could be brought home and put to work in our own economy.

This is what happens when you have a very archaic and outdated corporate tax system. When I say "outdated," I mean it literally: the U.S. is one of the last remaining developed countries with a world-wide tax system (meaning that money corporations earn around the world, not just the income they derive from the U.S., can be taxed here). Most of our peers got rid of world-wide tax systems decades ago.

I agree with Trump: 15% is a reasonable corporate income tax rate. (There are strong arguments to be made for its elimination entirely, but that's for a post another day.) This is the hallmark of his plan, and I like it. I need to point out two grave concerns I have though.

(1) It isn't clear that his plan will dramatically simplify the corporate tax code. Rates do need to come down, but that's far from the only problem. The code's complexity creates an additional tax in and of itself because complying with it is such an expensive legal and accounting endeavor. Any major reform must include simplifying and streamlining the tax code.

(2) Trump said that he doesn't care about revenue, and this plan seems to bear that out. This is a plan that, when combined with Trump's high levels of proposed spending, would add mightily to our national debt. Any tax and spending plans Republicans pass through Congress MUST seek to reign in our exploding national debt. You cannot increase spending while cutting tax rates and narrowing the tax base. The base should be broadened, the rates lowered, and the spending brought to heel.

There is a myth floating around the White House that cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% will lead to enough economic growth to offset tax revenue losses at current rates. That is not true. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher growth, but it will not lead to enough growth to stem the rising tide of national debt. (Corporate tax rates are but one of many headwinds our economy faces.) Any tax plan must be, at a minimum, revenue neutral and passed in conjunction with LOWER spending plans. Otherwise, you're essentially mortgaging your future for a little short-term relief. Additional government debt can quickly crowd out additional private investment, after all.

NAFTA:

Rumors are circulating that Trump may be planning to sign an executive order expressing our intent to leave NAFTA. This would be an error of historic proportions.

It is a good idea to occasionally revisit old agreements. Our economy and the world in general are very different places than they were when NAFTA was negotiated. We should never consider economic frameworks to be entirely permanent.

Thus, re-opening negotiations could be a very good idea. Re-negotiating and leaving are very, very different outcomes though. If we left NAFTA, three realities are absolutely certain to set in: (1) a small number of jobs would come back to the U.S.--far too few for most people even to know someone who held one of those new jobs; (2) far, far more jobs would simply be automated--no one would hold them; and (3) the prices that ALL Americans pay for many goods and some services would increase sharply.

It wouldn't end there though. This would be catastrophic for Mexico and Canada and near-catastrophic for the U.S. Stock markets would be hammered. GDP growth would slow--possibly even reverse (which means lower standards of living for many people). Anyone who has a 401(k), an IRA, or simply invests a little in the stock market to plan for retirement would find his retirement calculus suddenly looking less rosy.

The world is a different place today. Taking another look at NAFTA's terms is a good idea. As I said though, the world is a different place today, and whereas whether to join NAFTA was a good question in the 90's, two decades later, whether to leave it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

. Great article from a list I subscribe to over at Norada. Biggest failure I see in my clients is that they have no desire to better themselves or build Human Capital and expand their skillset. READ! Bottom line is that in 5-10 years, you will be the same person you are today with the exception of the books you read and the new people you meet. Try to be better 5-10 years from now. Keep growing. Read.

Research shows that 88% of wealthy people devote at least 30 minutes a day to reading. If it works for them, it could work for you.

Below, we’ve rounded up 12 of our favorite books, from personal finance classics to new releases. Here’s to a prosperous year!

Hill’s timeless personal fiance classic will help you understand that getting rich is more about mentality above anything else. In fact, he barely mentions the words “money,” “wealth,” or “finances.” Rather, he explains the psychological barriers that hold many people back from building fortunes — and teaches you how to start thinking your way to success.

Rich people tend to believe starting a business is the fastest way to make money. This read, endorsed by self-made billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, will teach you just how to do that … but not the way a conventional business book does.

“Unlike a lot of today’s business writers, Brooks didn’t boil his work down into pat how-to lessons or simplistic explanations for success (How many times have you read that some company is taking off because they give their employees free lunch?)” Gates explains. “You won’t find any listicles in his work. Brooks wrote long articles that frame an issue, explore it in depth, introduce a few compelling characters, and show how things went for them.”

Don’t let the 1969 publication date throw you off. While a lot has changed in the business world since the 1960’s, the fundamentals of building a strong business have not, Gates writes, adding, “Brooks’s deeper insights about business are just as relevant today as they were back then.”

If a blurb by Buffett doesn’t entice you, get directly inside the billionaire’s head with this collection of letters and notes written by the “Oracle of Omaha.”

The 700+ page book offers a clearer picture of Buffett’s philosophies on business, investing, and life.5. “Tools of Titans” by Tim FerrissWhat does it take to be a billionaire? Best-selling author Tim Ferriss’ latest book explores the daily routines and habits of celebrities, professional athletes, hedge fund managers and others.Ferriss went straight to the sources and interviewed more than 200 world-class performers.For a sneak peak, check out one, peculiar habit that the wealthiest, most successful people share.

Nearly a century ago, Clason revealed the “secret” to getting rich in his 1926 personal finance classic.It turns out that the “secret” isn’t much of one. All it takes to get rich is mastering a few simple concepts, such as paying yourself first and living within your means, which Clason preaches via a collection of entertaining parables.

Kiyosaki shatters the myth that you need to earn a lot of money to get rich in this best-seller. By telling the story of two dads — his own, and the father of his best friend — he explains how to build wealth even with a small salary.

Additionally, Kiyosaki challenges the popular belief that your house is an asset, details the differences between how rich people and average people choose to get paid, and emphasizes the critical difference between an asset and a liability.

When Steve Siebold started interviewing hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, he was “completely broke and searching for answers about success I wasn’t finding in the classroom,” he writes.

“What I discovered was, to get rich, I had to learn to think like a rich person. … Once I changed my thinking, the money started to flow.”

Anyone has the opportunity to build wealth, he stresses in “How Rich People Think,” and it all starts with changing your mindset. For a sneak peak, check out the number one way rich people view the world differently than the average person.

As Siebold says, to get rich, you have to learn from those who have already done it. Self-made millionaire Grant Cardone knows a thing or two about managing money: The entrepreneur has built five companies and a multi-million dollar fortune.

In the best-selling author’s latest book, he emphasizes that if you want real success, you have to be hungry, hyper-focused, even obsessed.

While Cardone offers some contrarian advice — he discourages investing in a 401(k) plan and buying a home — his wealth-building strategies helped him go from broke at 25 to earning his first million by age 30.

If you want to earn more in 2017, a simple yet often overlooked strategy is to negotiate your salary.If you’re nervous about approaching your boss to ask for a raise, try Cohen’s best-seller. It will help you get what you want, and what you deserve.

They are equally capable of rationalizing that economic misery in places such as Greece and Venezuela has nothing to do with bad policy, and you can even find a few zealots willing to defend basket cases such as Cuba and North Korea.

So long as they don’t burn me at the stake for my heretical views, I guess I won’t get too agitated by their bizarre fetish for statism.

But I will periodically mock them. And that’s the purpose of today’s column. We’ll start with this nice comparison between a capitalist grocery store and a socialist grocery store. I have no idea, by the way, if the lower image actually is a supermarket in a socialist country, but let’s not forget that a real-world version of this comparison is one of the reasons there’s no longer an Evil Empire.

But the bad news about socialism is not limited to economic deprivation for the masses.

The system also leads in many cases to totalitarianism (see this article by Marian Tupy, for example).

The PotL sent me this collection of risky temptations and it perfectly captures the attitude of many statists. No matter how many times socialism has failed, they never learn the appropriate lesson. It just hasn’t been tried by the right people, they tell us. Or been imposed in the right circumstances.

So they want us to give it one more try, just like a person with no willpower will eat one more bite of chocolate.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both. We have bottled Liberal Tears to create a CLP that gives you guaranteed 2nd Amendment protection. New Liberal Tears Gun Oil is NOW BACON SCENTED

It may be the most comprehensive and broad collection of data about our governments that exists. It's non-partisan and, in something akin to a breath of fresh air, doesn't offer opinions or analysis--just data.
​
There is data on the local, state, and federal levels of government. Do you want to know how much revenue the governments take in? How much they spend? It's there. Do you want to know the sources of government revenue and where it's all spent? He has that too. You can even look up numbers of police officers your government employs, crime rates, spending on various subsidies, and just about anything else you could ever want.

It's all presented in a very user-friendly, clear interface as well. It should be fairly approachable be nearly everyone.
Anyway, I'm providing this in case anyone wants to get a clean look at relevant data without layers of "interpretation and analysis" (i.e., bias) that so many Left- and Right-leaning websites display these days (under the guise of objectivity, of course).

Caution though: If you're offended by facts, then you may want to stay away from this one.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both. We have bottled Liberal Tears to create a CLP that gives you guaranteed 2nd Amendment protection. New Liberal Tears Gun Oil is NOW BACON SCENTED

Anyone remember when you used to have a nozzle on a gas can where you could simply open the cap and pour gas out of it? If you were in a hurry you could pop out the small vent tab in the can to allow air in and make it pour faster. Now, we have these shitty, plastic twist-turn, extend-contract, contrapations that have inspired me to reach new heights of profanity while trying to fill my push mower. They are way worse than child proof medication bottles. Whats worse, they invariably leak gas everywhere. Three cans in five years, they all end up leaking within a few weeks.

So, there I am cleaning gas off my hands, after spreading sawdust over yet another gas spill on my garage floor. I start to wonder who the fucks bright idea it was to fix something that wasn't broke? Wasn't a simple cap and hose good enough? I looked at the can and saw the words "EPA compliant." So I got on the web and learned more about evaporation loss with low boiling point liquids, how the old system vented gas to air, and how this evaporative loss was a legitimate problem. I learned how stopping it can save me gas and therefore save me money.

Then I went back out to the garage and looked at the gas spill. I stood there and looked at the epa label telling me how its saving gas, then I looked back at the gas spill.

I stood there for a solid two minutes appreciating the irony. I went in and poured myself a glass of wine to savor the moment.

Its bullshit. Its not working. Three in five years might be a small sample group, but I'm guessing everyone who actually has to pour gas knows they are not working. However, nothing will be done about it. Say something negative, (or positive) about the EPA and watch everyone obsessed with politics turn on you like rabid dogs.

I went and bought a funnel. Unfortunately, its an EPA-approved funnel with several moving parts, so it will probably leak by the end of the month too.

I came home from the store with the EPA funnel and had a second glass of wine. I listened to some Delibes, "The Flower duet" while I contemplated and enjoyed my afternoon.

I get why Nero fiddled while Rome burned. I really get it. The thing about it is this: Rome got exactly what it deserved. Why should he have tried to stop it?

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their peoples in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was their object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." -Abraham Lincoln

Do you hear that? It's the sound of war drums beating throughout the United States. The steady beat coming from the news outlets has led to more discussion on social media. Your friends and family are becoming useful idiots by parroting corporate media claims and politician's talking points . They do this all while assuring you and others that they have the moral high ground. We're going to war 'for the children', 'because no one should attack their own people with gas' and because 'we have to do something!'.

The virtue signaling outweighs any call for truth. Syrian children are being openly exploited in an effort to get everyone on board with war, without verifying any details. Go to war first, then ask questions.

The first casualty of war is the Truth. -Representative Thomas Massie

Any good student of history knows that there will ALWAYS be an emotional event necessary to stir up public buy-in for war. Many times later, as we will see, these events are determined to be frauds perpetuated by those who wish to capitalize on perpetual war.

Let’s analyze this list in reverse chronological order. You might notice a major conflict not listed. We'll discuss it's absence at the bottom.

Syria (now)

On the eve of Peace Treaty talks to discuss the rebuilding of Syria, the quantity of infrastructure money Syria would receive, and after a prolonged campaign which saw the successful repelling of his enemies, Bashar Al Assad decided this was the time to gas his own people.

This move would undoubtedly remove any support he might have had and turn even his allies against him. Read that again. How much sense does that make? No savvy politician would order such an attack unless it was a last resort when facing an existential threat.

Jason Stapleton also discusses why it makes little sense for Assad to resort to gas attacks at this time:

I’ll leave the discussion surrounding the validity of the sarin gas attack alone. Speculation that the event was faked came immediately. Some was thought-provoking while other claims seemingly grasped for straws.

Photos disturbingly revealed medical responders handling victims bare-handed (it takes about 2-3 seconds of exposure to absorb through the skin with immediate bowel releasing effects). Doubts also surfaced as Dr Shajul Islam , a doctor in charge of receiving victims, spent a fantastic amount of time tweeting about his overrun hospital and its inability to handle so many victims. He entertained others in twitter debates and requested people who didn’t believe him to ‘call him’ when many believe he should have been overrun with patients.

History has a way of determining the validity of these emotional triggers to war. In the meantime, the importance of confirming reports before spending American blood and coin in faraway lands cannot be overstated.

These trends which mold public opinion highlight the importance of discerning truth/fiction when the drum beats of war begin. For instance, this 7-year old Syrian child runs a Twitter account, speaks perfect English, is verified somehow, and is an absolute media darling receiving constant retweets by CNN and other large networks. It’s almost as if the media isn’t even trying to hide their sculpting of public pro-war opinion.

Trump was correct when he said we should leave these people alone and let them sort it out on their own.

Syria (first attempt, 2013)

In 2013 the war drums beat for U.S. intervention into Syria and politicians received a resounding ‘No’ from their constituencies. War-weary citizens weren’t making the “Syrian civil war threatens American interests” connection. Polls saw a substantial shift toward Pro-War sentiment, however, after a particularly gruesome beheading video Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff on 19 August and 2 September respectively. While many online conspiracy theorists were ridiculed when they questioned the authenticity of the video, they were ultimately validated when it was revealed that the video was likely staged with green screens, camera trickery and slick post-production techniques.

Children will always be used as props for war because nothing else tugs on heart strings more. This photo of Omran Daqneesh went viral as 'the iconic image of war-torn Syria'. He and his sister have really been down on their luck. It seems they've been used over and over in multiple war scenes across the country, sometimes even wearing the same war-torn clothes! Videos can be found of photographers setting up this shot while Omran wipes at his bloody face painlessly.

Americans avoided the hefty coordinated push for war by politicians such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain (both highly funded by defense industries that have never met a war they didn’t support) as well as media organizations doing their part to fan the flames of war. Attempted war with Syria was thwarted although persistent bombings and limited military operations have continued ever since.

Afghanistan (2003)

Whoa, 9/11! People are emotionally attached to this! Look, I won’t argue that 9/11 was/wasn't an inside job. But if Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind, we got him. Why are we still there?

Of course, Bin Laden as justification for the longest war in U.S. history always had its weaknesses. As with Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gadaffi, or Manuel Noriega, past U.S. support for bin Laden had to be kept out of the public discussion. The focus needed to stay on how a ‘crime’ by a non-state actor was transformed into an ‘act of war’. Thus, the War on Terror was born. “It was this crime, in fact, that was used to implicate the nation of Afghanistan, even though 92% of Afghans not only didn't support the crime of 9-11, but they had never to that day even heard about it.” [War Is A Lie, by David Swanson, 2010, Charlottesville]

If retribution against Bin Laden was the goal, we’ve succeeded. Why then, are we still in Afghanistan after his death in May of 2011? Obama didn’t ease up after the killing of bin Laden either. Instead, he tripled all troops deployed to the region from 2009 levels. Media claims which hyped Taliban capabilities were to be expected and to be fair, these are the same Taliban that successfully repelled the Soviet invasion in 1979. They’re fierce fighters with a home field advantage on an unapologetic terrain. It would be erroneous to translate their resistance to our occupying force as a threat to American interests, though. Our troops leave and the Taliban problem is alleviated.

If we’re to believe that Al Qaeda is the new threat, let’s discuss. At this point in history, they have never shown themselves to be a threat to American sovereignty. Other than some false threats of election violence Al Qaeda remains a geopolitically isolated adversary – an adversary that can easily be ignored through non-intervention where no threats exist to American liberty or property.

Not to be overlooked, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) does indeed pose an immediate threat to Saudi Arabia and Arabian interests. Our alliance with them and our reliance on their oil is to blame for the persistent public narrative of ‘American interests are at risk in the region’.

Casualties in Afghanistan to date: 2400 American military deaths, 20,000 American service members wounded in action. In addition, 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

Iraq (2003)

Colin Powell testifies in front of Congress with a vial of anthrax. “Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.”Dick Cheney promises that our troops would arrive and be met as ‘liberators’. Ken Adelman promised the voters a ‘cake walk’.

There was no ‘wiggle room’ here as he was using it against his own citizens. Of course, none of the chemical attacks Saddam Hussein conducted against the Iranians drew public outrage most likely because CIA files later proved that the United States was assisting himin that venture.

Following the United Nations’ refusal to authorize the war, George W Bush pressed on anyway. Weapons of Mass Destruction violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and violated the U.N. Charter; It was a shaky case that was parroted by all that supported war, but nonetheless, was absolutely false and contrived for the purpose of getting to war. “Bad Intelligence” was ultimately to blame. After more than 1,000,000 deaths and over 4,000,000 displaced refugees, the region has still not recovered and no case is open against any American that perpetuated the WMD myth. Many in media got promoted and can still be seen parroting more war on news panels.

PANAMA (1990)

Before George H W Bush could attack General Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989 pro-war public opinion had to be established. An article in the New York Times on December 26, 1989, began:

"The United States military headquarters here, which has portrayed General Manuel Antonio Noriega as an erratic, cocaine-snorting dictator who prays to voodoo gods, announced today that the deposed leader wore red underwear and availed himself of prostitutes."

See, nowhere was it noted that Noriega worked for the United States Central Intelligence Agency. It fails to note that he was able to use that employment to later steal the Panamanian election. It curiously also fails to mention that US/Noriega relations cooled after he failed to support the United States’ aggressions against Nicaragua.

This man liked to snort cocaine off of hookers. That’s front page gold! Also printed freely were reports that multiple stashes of coke were found in one of Noriega’s residences, though later it was revealed that it was merely tamales wrapped in banana leaves. The correction didn’t get nearly as many retweets or ‘likes’ on Facebook as the original inaccurate claim.

Vietnam (1964)

Vietnam started as a humanitarian crisis where the US established a foothold of troops in Vietnam by providing aid after massive flooding affected the local populace. When fighting emerged between North and South Vietnam, many officials knew that the U.S. populace would not be convinced that ‘American interests’ were threatened in the Southeast Asian nation.

The Gulf of Tonkin ‘incident’ reportedly occurred August 2, 1964. The claim that US Naval vessels were attacked by Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin was the public opinion counterweight needed to fuel the U.S. propaganda machine. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later admitted Gulf of Tonkin never happened.

President Lyndon B Johnson and the media famously repeated the talking point that "Some of our boys are floating around in the water.”

Casualties in Vietnam War: More than 5,000,000 were killed or wounded including 4 million civilians, 1.1million North Vietnamese troops, 40,000 South Vietnamese troops and more than 58,000 U.S. troops.

Korean War (1950)

The narrative sold to the public by President Truman and newspapers was that ‘North Korea attacked South Korea under direct orders of the Soviet Union’. This, in fact, verified that the Soviets were beginning a worldwide takeover in the name of ‘Communism’.

In all respects, we were seeing a civil war yet this was marketed to the American public as a ‘defensive’ war where we were protecting the South Koreans from unjustified attack while also preventing the spread of communism.

Following the sinking of the Lusitania, newspapers beat the war drums by stirring American anger at the ‘murderous Germans’. What they failed to mention was that before the Lusitania set sail from New York, German Ambassadors received permission from the U.S. Secretary of State to take out large advertising sections of US newspapers warning Americans NOT to set sail on the Lusitania.

“Notice! Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. Imperial German Embassy Washington, D.C. 22 April 1915”

You see, the Lusitania was built to British Navy specifications and was classified as an auxiliary cruiser. That the Lusitania was carrying troops, ammo, and supplies of war was also no secret.

Amidst a campaign of German U-boats preventing similar cargo from reach England, the Lusitania was ordered through a known German submarine operating area while simultaneously ordering her escorts to leave her for another operational area.

The sinking and coinciding media blitzkrieg (pun intended) famously stirred up the public buy-in necessary to bring the U.S. into the war.

“The British and U.S. governments falsified the ship's manifests and lied so effectively that many people today imagine there is doubt over whether the Lusitania had weapons on board. Or they imagine that dive crews discovering arms in the wreckage of the ship in 2008 were resolving a long-standing mystery." [War Is A Lie, by David Swanson]

Remember, also, the premise of World War I was that the Kaiser HAD to be overthrown in Germany. We just couldn't have someone like him in power, anyone but him. 20 years later, Hitler.

Peace doesn't mean pacifism. When you are directly attacked, you respond with force. The government's only job is protection of life, liberty and property. This is what the military is for.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, our response is to destroy them. We were successful by any measure.

Summary

I don't want any of the above to be seen as an argument FOR Saddam Hussein, FOR the Viet Cong, FOR Manuel Noriega, etc. These dictators are ruthless in their own right. They are pieces of shit. Got it.

But many of them were allies with United States until we found a need for war. We actually ASSISTED them in committing atrocities. At some point they became expendable and what followed was, many times, blatant propaganda, trickery, deception, and lies, in order to get public opinion to support a war.

For example, The United States and EU Nations had been arming and working with Muamar Gadaffi in Libya for years, until our "intervening” against him in 2011. U.S. and British intelligence agencies had worked with Gadaffi's torturers and killers many times in the past.

Gadaffi had given up his nuclear program at our behest.

His subsequent fate (sodomized, butchered, and drug naked through the streets), along with the fate of Hussein in Iraq unfortunately sends a strong message to other nations who are already inclined to believe that only nuclear weapons will protect them.

Once again, U.S. intervention in an attempt to elicit regime change and make the world a better place resulted in secondary and tertiary effects, causing more harm, damage and lives lost.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

You're looking at a guy who just got an audience at Yale -- Yale! -- to vote in favor of the right of state secession, by a margin of 2 to 1.

Yes, I had some supporters in the audience. But an organizer said that even correcting for that, the outcome was still very surprising.

Events at the Yale Political Union begin with a 20-30 minute statement by the speaker, and conclude by giving the speaker an opportunity to respond to the various speeches, pro and con, that students have given over the course of the night regarding the resolution at issue.

My responses were the most enjoyable part of the night.

Let's be blunt about this: while keeping the audience laughing, I pummeled my opponents into dust.

"Man, that Woods sure has a high opinion of himself," you say.

I'm just telling you what happened.

I've got video coming.

My favorite part involved the poor soul who was outraged that we hadn't discussed slavery, which "everybody knows" was at the root of battles between the states and the federal government.

I then reviewed the history of that struggle, and rhetorically removed his kneecaps.

It's nice to be able to walk into one of the most prestigious universities in the world and feel completely confident arguing a highly controversial position.

You can have that nice feeling, too.

No more thinking to yourself: I know I'm right, yet my co-workers left me stammering for a response.

I've distilled the knowledge it's taken me decades to acquire into on-the-go courses you can listen to in your car.

Today is the five-year anniversary of my LibertyClassroom, where my (trustworthy and awesome) colleagues and I teach the history and economics they kept from you.

In honor of that anniversary, I'm taking 200 smackers offthe Master, lifetime membership to the site. That's all 18 courses (that you can watch or listen to whenever you want), Q&A forums, live events, and more, plus every single course we ever create.

This ain't never happening again, period.

As a bonus, you get all the courses I created for the Ron Paul Curriculum (that's 400+ videos, also available in audio format).

My course on government distills 20 years of learning into a one-semester course.

Savings: 19 1/2 years.

Plus, again today only, I'm also throwing in signed, personalized copies of FOUR of my books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (aNew York Times bestseller), Who Killed the Constitution?, Real Dissent, and 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.

Could there be a better treat for yourself, or for that student in your life?

"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
​FIND OUT MORE HERE

My position on building barriers on our borders ("wall," "fence," or any other term you like) seems to be controversial. Thus, I want to explain it here.

First and foremost, it is absolutely true that our border security system is broken. It is absolutely true that a barrier built in isolation would not necessarily solve problems and could also create a few new ones. It is absolutely true that a barrier that serves the functions I mention below may end up being too expensive to build. (This post is written based on the assumption that such an obstruction could be built without "breaking the bank." In reality, that remains to be seen.)

Also, I'm not much concerned with the "intangible" reasons people give themselves about why they do not support building a barrier on our borders. I'm concerned with practicalities: pragmatism and realism. The practical implication of not building a barrier along our border is that one piece of our immigration policy--the piece about actually crossing into this country--could be described by three words: "whoever," "wherever," and "whenever." Tired comparisons to one's house and locked doors aside, it should be easy to see that this is neither good economic policy, good security policy, nor good immigration policy. No, it isn't true that we can accomplish the same thing with a "technology fence" and increased numbers of border agents. That has been tried, and it didn't succeed; our borders are simply too long and, in places, too inhospitable.

Before getting into explaining the reasons that I do support the "border wall," I want to first make sure that it's clear that those reasons do NOT include racism, cultural concerns, or anything of the sort. Again, it's pragmatism. So here we go...

It is true that smugglers usually smuggle people, drugs, etc. across our border at established checkpoints, via water, and using other means that would be unaffected by a land barrier. It is also true, however, that smugglers do indeed use routes they've established that cross the border far away from any border checkpoints. Just ask the many farmers in southern Texas who own land at the border and who frequently find people--and evidence of people--on their property making their way north.

It is also a practical truth that policing only checkpoints is far easier than policing thousands of miles of open terrain. Barriers are pragmatic manifestations of this very basic fact.

Finally, choke points are frequently used in military strategy, and they are applicable here. Finding drugs or people being smuggled across our southern border anywhere along its 2,000-mile length is daunting. Forcing any traffickers that use the open desert into checkpoints (the "wall's" version of choke points) would make the cost policing much lower and probability of interdiction much higher. It would also increase confidence in general (less wondering about what you're missing along the hundreds of miles of border that see an ICE agent only once or twice a year--if at all).

Yes, drugs and people could still be flown across the border. Yes, they could come around either side of the barrier on the water. Yes, they could come through check points. "The wall" would not solve those problems, but it would simplify them by removing a source of much uncertainty along the land route.

I've focused here on two kinds of trafficking, but all of this applies to economics and security as well. Without effective control of who comes here and in what numbers, immigration can never be completely tailored to the needs of our economy. Without knowing who is coming here, when, and why, we can never be sure that those coming here do not intend to do us harm. (Indeed, many have crossed our borders with that exact purpose in mind.)

I'm advocating making a barrier along our borders part of a larger immigration overall. A barrier alone would create many problems and would be an excuse for having no real policy. This is what should happen, costs notwithstanding.

(1) Build a barrier along the length of the border that cannot be dismantled easily, cannot be dug under easily, and cannot be climbed over easily. Maintenance costs must also be low.

(2) Increase the use of technology and agents at the checkpoints that penetrate the barrier. This means not only more thorough and effective screening and border crossings but also more efficient ones that move people through more quickly.

(3) Rely primarily on technology to monitor the parts of the barrier that are not near crossings and that rarely, if ever, have a border patrol presence. This is where technology can really add value.

(4) Change immigration quotas annually to match the needs of our economy. Asylum requests not pegged to the needs of the economy should also be considered on a case-by-case basis. This is America, after all.

(5) Streamline the system for granting visas and all other forms of entry so that the path to legal immigration is quick and easy. It should take months or even weeks--not years. The increase in barriers along the border should come with an increase in efficiency in admitting those whom we need and who are coming here legally.

This system would benefit both Americans and immigrants. It would ensure that only those immigrants whom we need can come, which is a benefit to Americans. (I'm sorry, fellow conservatives, but that number would probably still be in six figures every year. The point of the "wall" would NOT be to end immigration. The point would be to change how it happens.) On the other hand, it would ensure that those immigrants who do come are documented and are legal, are paid a fair wage, and are not taken advantage of by their employers. It would also ensure that taxation is paid.
If the "wall" were cost-effective--a big "if," so we must assume that it would be for the sake of this discussion--why oppose it? One's argument then is literally "I do not want barriers to entry on our border." Why? Many will say "because it's racist." Well, I just laid out an argument that has nothing to do with race.

Many will say that "it serves no purpose." (One can only credibly say this if one can show that no one ever crosses our borders except at monitored checkpoints, which simply is not true.) I just showed here that it would serve a practical purpose, but even if you don't think I'm right, there's still a chance that I am. The benefits of being right--especially if the barrier is a reasonable price in the first place--are surely worth the price of building it and being wrong about its benefits. What harm would have been caused because of it?

Several people have asked me why I support it. This is why. Borders were a formality for much of history. In the modern world, they simply aren't. (Just ask Europe.) On this issue, I must agree with Donald Trump: a country should know who is crossing its borders and should have the means for controlling that flow with high confidence. Period.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon used his annual letter to shareholders to provide his outlook on a post-Brexit world, internal changes the company must adjust to, and give his thoughts on what is wrong in an otherwise amazing United States.

Dimon, leader of world’s most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that he said was “upsetting” to write.

Here’s the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students, forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.

While I disagree with the notion that we MUST become more internationally collectivist, Dimon points out a lot of agreeable problems. Many of these are common sense to the rest of us, but are mostly ignored by the political class:

- Skyrocketing corporate taxes drive human capital and jobs overseas
-Regulation is excessive in almost every industry
-United States has wasted trillions in useless wars and requires a foreign policy overhaul
-Failed immigration policy which fails to retain numerous much-needed advance degree holders
-A Justice system that criminalizes American citizens with felonies, many times for only minor infractions
-A housing market weighted down by bureaucratic layers and rules

Finally, Dimon points out something that I'm very passionate about. Educating the populace. The Democratic, left-leaning populace, left to its own devices in 2016 overwhelmingly wanted a socialist to be their candidate at the same time that Venezuela burned. Dimon points out that people are losing their confidence in a system that has brought so many out of poverty. The free market is responsible for the most wealth created than any other system yet known to man.

The U.S. is paying the price for bad decisions, and “something has gone awry in the public’s understanding of business and free enterprise,” -Jamie Dimon

A useful companion to Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is the series of videos produced by the Mises Institute in which various professors comment on each of the book’s chapters – explaining the argument, elaborating on it, and applying it to present conditions. Here are all those videos combined into one mega-video:

Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom has its own course in Austrian economics and it is organized as follows:

I. Scope and Method of Economics

Economics

Method of Economics

Scope of Economics: Human Action

II. Laws of Personal Action

Implications of Human Action

Laws of Utility

The Law of Returns

Capital Formation

III. Laws of Voluntary, Interpersonal Action

Voluntary Exchange

The Division of Labor

The Unhampered Market Economy

Money

Prices of Consumer Goods

Prices of Producer Goods

Economic Calculation

Profit and Production Decisions

Equity and Investment Decisions

The Capital Structure

Competition and Monopoly

The Time Market: The Rate of Interest

Income: Sources and Disbursements

The Money Market: The Purchasing Power of Money

Bond Markets

Stock Markets

Economic Progress

IV. Laws of Involuntary, Interpersonal Action

Booms and Busts

Money and Banking

Monetary Policy: Monetary Inflation and Credit Expansion

The Business Cycle

Fiscal Policy

Interventionism: Price Controls

Interventionism: Product Controls

The Mixed Economy

The Command Economy: Socialism and Fascism

Each lecture is available in video or audio format according to your preference, and each is accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation and recommended readings drawn from classic texts in the Austrian canon. Learn more about the Liberty Classroom here!